Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
This sounds almost like a custody battle of sorts, but it\'s over some documents. They\'ll either go to one library, or the other, or they\'ll \"visit\" both. [more...] from The Pittsburgh Tribune Review. Even more here from The Pittsburgh Post Gazzette.
Someone writes \"The Supreme Court ruled today that database vendors such as LEXIS need the consent of freelance journalists to reproduce their articles and photographs.
The court ruled 7-2 that compilation in an electronic database is different from other kinds of archival or library storage of material that once appeared in print. So now companies need writers permission before stories go online. The case is New York Times v. Tasini, 00-201
From the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal...
\"America\'s public library systems may find themselves caught in a sort of legal hell, where they face First Amendment lawsuits if they move to restrict Internet access and civil-rights lawsuits if they don\'t. It could also mean a curious double standard, under which restrictions on Internet usage and access to protect children from X-rated material are legally forbidden while the same restrictions would be required to protect librarians themselves from a hostile work environment.\" [more...]
Mary Minow writes \"Rep. Felix Grucci introduced a bill May 15 to amend section 254 of the Communications Act of 1934 to require schools and libraries receiving universal service assistance to block access to Internet services that enable users to access the World Wide Web and transfer electronic mail in an anonymous manner. This Act is cited as the `Who Is E-Mailing Our Kids Act\'.
A library would need to certify that it`(i) is enforcing a policy regarding anonymous Internet connection that includes the operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of its computers with Internet access that prevents use of such computers to access an online privacy service that enables a user--
`(I) to send electronic mail anonymously; or
`(II) to access the World Wide Web anonymously; and
`(ii) is enforcing the operation of such technology protection measure during any use of such computers.\';
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query Look up H.R. 1846 \"
Free Software Leaders Stand Together is an interesting rebuttle to some dumb things Microsoft said.
They say Media companies are quick to invoke the DMCA but it won\'t work. The DMCA is clearly losing the war being fought against it on two fronts.
1. The law is being invoked in cases where its ability to deter anybody\'s behavior is questionable
2. It\'s being used to preempt rights that are close to Americans\' hearts.
R.I.P. stupid law
Teachers have been able to use portions of books, music, and videos under fair use since copyright laws were changed in 1976. Now online colleges are being treated differently. Technology Education & Copyright Harmonization (TEACH) Act would give online professors the freedom to show instructional videos, e-mail literary works, and download short music clips without getting permission or paying.
Not suprisingly, publishers (via the APA) say this is unnecessary, unjustified and unfair. Their view is the creators and producers of online course content are being denied fair market value for their products when no one is pushing for federal legislation to eliminate the need to pay for computers, software, Internet access, faculty salaries or tuition, or any of the other costs involved in online education.
No suprise there, after all they \"have a very serious issue with librarians\".
NPR ran a Show [You\'ll need Real Player to listen] on this mess.